Paper No Marjorie Peace Lenn

Transcription

1 Working Paper Series on QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Paper No Marjorie Peace Lenn August 2004 The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, to members of its Board of Executive Directors, or to the countries they represent.

2 STRENGTHENING WORLD BANK SUPPORT FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 1 I. Quality Assurance in Higher Education... 3 A. Purposes of Quality Assurance... 4 B. Who are the users and what are the uses of quality assurance?... 4 C. Modes of Quality Assurance... 6 D. Types of Accreditation: Institutional and Programmatic... 7 E. Four Steps of Accreditation... 8 F. National Accreditation Bodies... 9 G. Responsibilities of National Accrediting Bodies H. Politics of Quality Assurance II. The Status of Quality Assurance in East Asia and the Pacific Region A. General Characteristics of the Region's Quality Assurance Bodies B. Current Status of Quality Assurance Networking in the Region III. The Trade Agreements And Increasing Regional Mobility: Implications for Higher Education A. The GATS B. APEC C. ASEAN D. Regional Mobility Schemes E. Bilaterals IV. Toward Strengthening World Bank Support for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in East Asia And The Pacific A. The World Bank and Quality Assurance B. National Capacity Building C. East Asia and the Pacific Quality Assurance Region D. Sub-Regional Capacity Building E. Regional Capacity Building F. Focal Points for Coordination G. Appendix...36

3

4 STRENGTHENING WORLD BANK SUPPORT FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC developing countries are turning to regionalism as a tool for development (Shiff and Winters, 2003) Introduction Regional Integration and Development, a recent co-publication by the World Bank and Oxford University Press introduces the realization long suspected that regionalism is playing a major role in countries adopting a more outwardlooking stance, a greater liberalization of national policy and a sense of being a more equal partner with other countries. (Shiff and Winters, 2003) In the East Asia and the Pacific region, activities related to global, regional and bilateral trade agreements; regional and international associations; and intergovernmental organizations are contributing to an increasing sense of connection and, through these closer relationships, a new form of peer pressure to enhance domestic policy and practice. National higher education systems are not immune to the dynamics of regionalism. To the contrary, higher education by its basic nature of inquiry, has traditionally sought to respond to changing circumstances nationally and has looked beyond the limits of national borders to seek new truths and ways in which the educational enterprise can continuously improve itself. With the rise of regionalism and an increased sense of their status in the global marketplace, countries are recognizing the critical role played by higher education in economic development. Indeed, the World Development Study claimed that Knowledge has become the most important factor in economic development. The Bank concurs: The last decade of the 20 th century saw significant changes in the global environment that, in one way or another, bear heavily on the role, functions, shape and the mode of operation of tertiary education systems all over the world, including those in developing countries. Among the most influential changes are the increasing importance of knowledge as a driver of growth in the context of the global economy, the information and communication revolution, the emergence of a worldwide labor market, and global sociopolitical transformations. (World Bank Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, 2002). The quality of the higher education sector, and how that quality is defined, evaluated and monitored is therefore key not only to the social and economic well-being of a nation-state, but is a

5 determining factor related to the status of that higher education system within a region, and the overall quality of a region s higher education sector in a global context: As knowledge becomes more important, so does higher education. The quality of knowledge generated within higher education institutions, and its availability to the wider economy, is becoming increasingly critical to national competitiveness. (Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise, 2000). 2

6 I. Quality Assurance in Higher Education Quality assurance may relate to a program, an institution or a whole higher education system. In each case, quality assurance is all those attitudes, objects, actions and procedures which, through their existence and use, and together with the quality control activities, ensure that appropriate academic standards are being maintained and enhanced in and by each program. Quality assurance extends to making the process and standards known to the educational community and the public at large. (International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education). Countries with visions of economic growth are learning that a prerequisite of that growth is more of their population educated at higher levels. This translates into larger percentages of public funds designated for higher education and/or encouraging foreign education providers to enter the country and confer academic degrees. With increased funding and a growing number of degree granting entities come an increased concern by governments to be reassured on at least three counts: Are the institutions of higher education planning to produce the graduates required by society (i.e. are their objectives appropriate?) Is the money invested being spent well and are the institutions running efficiently (i.e. are they being managed well?) Are the institutions producing the desired graduates (i.e. are they operating effectively)? These concerns have led to an evolving concept of quality. Traditionally, the word quality was associated with excellence or outstanding performance. The United States, for example, began using quality assurance in the form of accreditation in the latter nineteenth century when it was difficult to distinguish where secondary education ended and tertiary education began. Yale and Harvard Universities were designated as the singular model of excellence by a newly organized New England Association of Schools and Colleges, and all institutions that chose to be recognized as tertiary had to fit the single model. By the advent of mass education beginning in North America in the late 1960s and in full swing in Europe by the beginning of the 1990s, the notion of quality had evolved into fitness for purpose, allowing the institution to demonstrate the achievement of objectives according to the purpose of its mission. This definition allowed greater diversity in the types of institutions necessary for educating a broader segment of society, as opposed to cloning them to a singular model. Prior to the mass education movement in Europe in the 1990s, external quality review existed essentially in the United States (for all institutions of postsecondary and higher education) and in the United Kingdom (for the polytechnic but not the university sector). In the last dozen years, the number of countries which have embraced quality assurance as a mode of evaluating the quality of its higher 3

7 education sector has increased to approximately 60 in every region of the world, making it an important and widely used tool for evaluating and improving the quality of higher education and for providing the government, educational establishment, students and employers with critical information about the quality of education offered at a particular institution and comparative information about the quality of a higher education system as a whole. A. Purposes of Quality Assurance In its multiple roles, quality assurance serves both the country and higher education community. Quality assurance: Defines higher education The foundation of quality assurance consists of standards or criteria for quality that are agreed upon by the communities of interest (e.g., government, higher education institutions, the professions, employers). Assists in reform efforts The standards for quality can help define expectations for higher education institutions and their programs i.e, what they are expected to become. Provides a basis for future planning With the standards as anchors for definition, the institution is clearer about its present in order to plan better for its future. Provides a structure for educational improvement The purposes of quality assurance are not only for purposes of assessing, but are also for purposes of enhancing the level of educational quality. Maximizes communication across education A national set of standards and a process for applying them enhances a country s ability to establish comparative data across its system of higher education, and a student s ability to move from secondary to tertiary and within tertiary education. Assists users to make better decisions B. Who are the users; and what are the uses of quality assurance? The primary users of quality assurance include government, students, employers and funding organizations, each of which use the process and outcomes for their own purposes: 4

8 USERS Government Students Employers Funding Organizations Institutions of Higher Education USES To define higher education country-wide To assure quality higher education for the citizenry To assure a quality labor force To determine which institutions and programs receive public funding To accept into civil service only those graduated from accredited institutions To determine which institutions receive research funding To generally use quality assurance as a means of consumer protection To assist in selecting an institution for study To ensure transfer between accredited institutions To ensure admission at the graduate level in a different institution from undergraduate degree To assist in employment, particularly in civil service and in the professions To assure qualified employees To determine eligible institutions To improve institutional information and data To enhance institutional planning To determine membership in certain organizations To facilitate transfer schemes To assure a qualified student body 5

9 C. Modes of Quality Assurance There are three primary modes of quality assurance globally: assessment, audit and accreditation. Their definitions are not sharp and when used concurrently, their functions sometimes overlap within a national system. Further, within these modes, additional quality assurance activities are practiced such as ranking, the use of performance indicators and testing/examinations. Among some private institutions throughout Asia, it is a marketing trend to undergo an ISO 9000 quality review which, because it was designed for application in industry, assists in measuring the educational inputs and process of an institution. However, there is no known quality assurance system in Asia which incorporates ISO 9000 in its own national process. Assessment, audit and accreditation are each operative to some extent in the region of East Asia and the Pacific: Mode 1: Assessment Assessment is an evaluation which results in a grade, whether numeric (e.g., a percentage or a shorter scale of, for example, 1 through 4); literal ( e.g. A to F) or descriptive (excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory). Assessment asks how good are your outputs? Assessment in and of itself typically does not include the dual purpose of quality improvement, which is necessary in a developing context. Further, assessment has a tendency to be more dependent on quantitative rather than qualitative measurement (e.g. it may ask how many books are in the library rather than finding out whether these books are: current, relevant to the curriculum and are read by the students and teaching staff). In the region, India and China use assessment (in the form of grading Indian institutions or Chinese teachers) in combination with the process of accreditation. Mode 2: Audit An audit is a check on what an institution explicitly or implicitly claims about itself. The institution claims what it will do and a quality audit checks the extent to which the institution is achieving its own objectives. Audit asks, how well are you doing what you say you are doing? Governments are more likely to prefer accreditation over audit, so that the auditing process is now found most typically in well-established higher education systems with strong traditions of self-evaluation internal to the institutions. In the region, Australia and New Zealand use the process of audit. Mode 3: Accreditation Accreditation is an evaluation of whether an institution qualifies for a certain status and is the primary choice of governments for national systems of quality assurance. This status may have implications for the institution itself (e.g., permission to operate or eligibility for external funding) and/or its students (e.g. eligibility for grants or a professional degree). Accreditation asks are you good enough to be approved (to confer degrees)? Accreditation has a dual purpose: (1) quality assessment as well as (2) quality improvement and should take into consideration inputs (e.g., how many volumes are in the library) but not without outcomes (e.g. how many titles are in the library; are they current, relevant and used). Generally speaking, an institution of higher education or its programs which is accredited is found to: Have educationally appropriate objectives as defined over time by the higher education community; Have the financial, human and physical resources needed to achieve these objectives; Have demonstrated that it is achieving these objectives now; and 6

10 Have provided sufficient evidence to support the belief and it will continue to achieve its objectives for some reasonable time into the future. Of the three modes, the most widely used regionally and globally and the most beneficial for purposes of development and capacity building is Mode 3: Accreditation 1. Accreditation in East Asia and the Pacific region takes place in: Cambodia 2, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines and Vietnam 3, and is the aspiration of Thailand. In an article comparing the three primary modes, Woodhouse uses a five-point checking sequence for comparison purposes: Are the higher education institution s objectives appropriate? Are its plans suitable for these objectives? Do its actions conform to its plans? Are its actions effective in achieving its objectives? What is the measure of the objectives? Woodhouse attests that when usually applied, assessment addresses number 5; audit addresses numbers 2 and 3; but accreditation addresses numbers 1 through 4 1 The three primary modes of assessment, audit, and accreditation apply to the quality assurance of institutions of higher education and their programs. They should not be confused with licensure and certification which attest to the competency assurance of the individual graduate/ professional. The number of graduates who achieve licensure (typically a governmental recognition of an individual to practice a certain profession) or certification (typically a non-governmental recognition of an individual to continue to practice a certain profession) can be used as outcome indicators of quality of an institution or program but are not free-standing modes of quality assurance. (Lenn, 1987) 2 By Royal Kret April 2003 [not included in this study]. 3 Pending final regulations. (Woodhouse, 1999). Audit is used most typically in mature systems of higher education and assessment is typically used in tandem with accreditation and audit. Accreditation, on the other hand, is a process which can be used in both developing and mature systems of higher education and has been the process of choice among World Bank higher education projects throughout the last decade (e.g. Romania, Hungary, China, Argentina, Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia and others). D. Types of Accreditation: Institutional and Programmatic Institutional accreditation focuses on the institution as a whole, giving attention not only to the overall educational program but to such areas as: Mission Governance Effective Management Academic Program Teaching Staff Learning Resources (library, laboratories, and educational technology) Students Student Services Physical Facilities Financial Resources The standards relate to the achievement of the institutional mission and objectives. The criteria are broad, and are demanded by the focus on the whole institution and by the potential presence of institutions of widely different purposes and scopes (e.g. universities, colleges, polytechnics, community colleges). The criteria also provide encouragement to institutions to try innovative curricula and procedures and adopt them when proven successful. Programmatic accreditation focuses on a degree granting program within an 7

11 institution of higher education which typically prepares professionals or special occupations. Each program has its own distinctive definitions of eligibility, criteria or standards for accreditation. These are most effective when they are developed through the cooperation of both educators and current practitioners as well as other interested parties such as employers and public agencies. Sought are reasonable conditions for achieving the objectives of satisfactory quality. The crucial dimension of quality in program accreditation is the adequacy of the educational program as it relates to professional expectations and requirements for entry and practice in a field (e.g., medical education leading to becoming a physician). During the external review process, the reviewers may review the relationship of the program to the institution for purposes of program maintenance and development. Vital to both institutional and programmatic accreditation is the institution of higher education being able to ascertain where it is in order that it can move to where it needs to go. Quality standards and criteria can take many forms 4, but they generally follow a 4 Note: An additional way in which standards can be developed for programs is through a national (and typically governmental) qualifications framework. The two national systems in Asia that employ qualifications frameworks for higher education are New Zealand and Australia. In both of these cases, the quality assurance mode is audit. Hong Kong is currently in the process of establishing a qualifications framework for postsecondary (occupational/vocational) education. As an example, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority describes itself as having a national qualifications framework designed to provide: nationally recognized, consistent standards and qualifications; and recognition and credit for all learning of knowledge and skills. Framework qualifications are quality assured and nationally recognized. Administered by the Qualifications Authority, the Framework is a way of generic set of questions that can be posed for this purpose: What are the institution s/program s purposes and goals? Are they known to the members of the academic community? What do you know about changes in the environment which could affect the goals? Is it possible to improve the links between stakeholder needs and the goals? Do the purposes and goals provide an adequate framework for insti-tutional/ programmatic evaluation? Where do you want to go? What is necessary to get there? What are the possible alternatives for action? What is needed to implement the various alternatives for action? Is the institution able to cover those costs? E. Four Steps of Accreditation Global practice in accreditation typically follows four steps: 1. Development of Standards Fundamental to the process of accreditation is agreement on a set of standards sponsored by a national accrediting body, which are applied evenly to all institutions of higher education or their programs in the country. These standards, whether institutional or programmatic accreditation, generally follow the component list for institutional accreditation as above. Again, the standards for programmatic accreditation are more discreet given their specialization. structuring national qualifications in a three-pronged quality system: (1) national standards are registered; (2) the standards are used by accrediting organizations; and (3) a moderation system ensures national consistency. 8

12 2. Self-Evaluation The institution or program under-going the process is asked to respond to the standards in a written report. It is typical that several months are allowed for this process to assure that the self-evaluation includes as much of the community as possible (e.g., administrative and teaching staff, students, employers, etc.). 3. External Review A team of experts, representative of the national higher education community (and professional community in the case of programmatic accreditation) review the selfevaluation report prepared by the institution as compared to the standards for accreditation and visit the institution/program for purposes of evaluating the extent to which the institution/program is doing what it says it is doing. 4. Accreditation Decision Based on the self-evaluation and the feedback of the external reviewers, a decision is reached by the national accreditation body as to whether the institution or program is: accredited, not accredited, or is on probation for a certain period of time during which improvements have to be made. An institution or program which is denied accreditation can experience: the cessation of public or private funding; its graduates being unqualified to enter the profession; a loss of status in the national higher education community. F. National Accreditation Bodies Organization and Funding. National accreditation bodies come in four major modes of organization and funding. Regardless of mode, it is optimal if not essential that accrediting bodies have independence in decision-making in order to be credible, trustworthy and respected. For example, the national accreditation body can be centralized governmental (such as Australia which has as its members the education ministries of the states/territories) and still have independence in decisionmaking as long as those in government who use the outcome of the decision/ accreditation for such matters as: authorizing operation or funding are not a part of the decision-making process leading to accreditation. An overt conflict of interest at any level of accreditation, but particularly at the national level, neutralizes independence and its overall effectiveness. The two predominant modes of organization for accreditation worldwide include Centralized Governmental and Quasi- Governmental. In both, funding is derived from government. But of these two, the one which is more likely to remain independent in its decision-making in any political setting is the quasi-governmental mode, although the Australians would argue that their governmental process is a worthy model for their needs. Of most national systems established through participation in a World Bank higher education project, the predominant mode has been quasigovernmental (e.g. Romania, Hungary, Malaysia, Indonesia, Argentina, Chile). However, in systems which are generally centrist in nature; do not (yet) have a large private sector and there is little distinction between government and higher education, a governmental process of quality assurance (even without independence of decisionmaking) is better than no process at all (e.g., China, Vietnam and Mongolia). 1. Centralized Governmental The national accrediting body is typically housed in or under the Ministry of Education and is clearly a governmental function. In the case of Australia, the national accrediting body is composed of Territory/State ministers of education. Other models include Germany, Russia and China, the latter evolving toward Provincial and Municipal (e.g., Beijing and Shanghai) accrediting agencies. Not all governmental 9

13 models can claim independent decision making in the process of accreditation. 2. Quasi-Governmental The national accrediting body is paid for by government but is owned (administered) by the institutions of higher education. This is the predominant model of accreditation in Eastern/Central Europe (Romania, Hungary, Estonia) which, when accreditation began in the region in the early 1990 s, ensured the independence of the process from a legacy of centrist decision-making. The two lesser used modes of organization for accreditation include Non-Governmental and Parallel Governmental and Non- Governmental, each of which have evolved in national contexts which have not been replicated worldwide: 3. Non-Governmental Although professional accreditation typically is independent and nongovernmental, there are few truly independent and non-governmental models of institutional accreditation. One of these is the accrediting system in the United States, which accredits 6,000 institutions of postsecondary and higher education and tens of thousands of programs all through national or regional non-governmental bodies. Another is the auditing process administered by the New Zealand Vice Chancellor s Association. In these cases the funding for the accrediting body and process is derived from the institutions themselves. Some Americans would argue that the only independence is complete independence from government, including funding. However, for most national settings, the funding of the institutions themselves is derived from the government and makes alternative means of financial independence improbable. 4. Parallel Governmental and Non- Governmental In some countries, a combination of governmental and non-governmental accreditation exists. For example, three parallel forms have existed simultaneously in the Netherlands: (1) central governmental institutional accreditation; (2) nongovernmental professional accreditation administered by a single body sponsored by the professions themselves, and (3) nongovernmental accreditation administered by the association of vice chancellors/rectors and funded by the institutions (which are, in turn, funded by government). In Canada, institutional accreditation is carried out by provincial governments, while professional accreditation is administered on a nationwide basis by non-governmental professional associations. Another model of governmental and nongovernmental activity is found in countries which have elected to nationally recognize accrediting bodies which, in turn, carry out the accrediting functions. In the United States where all accreditation is nongovernmental, this central recognition function is carried out not only by the federal government but also by a national non-governmental recognizing body. In Chile, the governmental program accreditation body has developed a national recognition system for professional organizations which will carry out accreditation of professional education. G. Responsibilities of National Accrediting Bodies The following constitutes responsibilities typical of national accrediting bodies. The national body, composed of any combination of representatives of government, institutions of higher education and the public, is served by a central secretariat whose business is to provide staff support for these various functions. In a rough chronological order 10

14 from time of founding, typical responsibilities include: Developing standards of quality in consultation with institutions and major users Developing and updating policy manuals of accreditation for national body and institutional use Developing a registry of external reviewers Scheduling external review of institutions/programs Maintaining records of accreditation activity Maintaining a national database of comparative institutional data Conducting training programs for: National accrediting body members Institutions in the process of selfevaluation External reviewers in the process of site visit Coordinating special committees for professional education (engineering, medicine, law, business, etc.) Cooperating with regional and international quality assurance bodies and organizations Cooperating with national edu-cational and professional agencies and organizations Making public (publicizing) quality assurance decisions Evaluating and renewing the accrediting process Two of the largest responsibilities of a national accrediting body are to: select and train external evaluators, the primary ambassadors of the accrediting process. It is the external evaluators who: review the institution/program s self evaluation; conduct a site visit and provide a report (and in some cases a recommendation for accreditation) to the national accrediting body. It is therefore critical that the national body select for these positions a relatively large corps of persons from the higher education and professional community who are: Credible in their fields Without conflicts of interest Flexible and empathetic to diverse educational missions Fair and objective Advisory Trusted Depending on the size of the higher education system, the selection and the maintenance of the external reviewer list can be a major task, but the training of these people who are at the core of the accrediting process can be an expensive and timeconsuming challenge to the secretariat/ national accrediting body. The training, however, is necessary to: Socialize the external reviewers to the process; Provide a broader forum for the continuing interpretation of the standards in the academic com-munity; and Provide continuity in the inter-pretation and application of the standards for quality. 11

15 H. Politics of Quality Assurance There are some typical politics related to quality assurance which appear to be common to countries worldwide. Among them are: 1. A Bias Against Private Higher Education Until the advent of mass education, the public sector has, with few exceptions (e.g., the United States and countries in South America) had a monopoly on national higher education systems. Only those institutions of higher education funded by the State are considered of quality because it is assumed that the State is providing its citizenry the best higher education possible. Although this mythology is eroding as the result of nations being unable to keep up with rising demand thus necessitating the influx of private providers (which are by most current accounts degree granting components of other nations public institutions), there is a tendency for governments to want to apply a national quality assurance system solely on private institutions. This is a mistake. A nation s institutions of higher education should be viewed as a system in which all institutions should be subject to the same standards of quality. It is common knowledge that not all public institutions are good and not all private institutions are bad. It is a country s primary responsibility to assure that a quality higher education is provided, regardless of the public or private status of the provider. 2. A Tendency Toward Quantitative Measurement Generally speaking, immature quality assurance processes have a tendency to be quantitative in evaluation whereas mature systems tend toward qualitative evaluation. It is easier to count things and assume that the outcome has something to do with quality when it may have no bearing at all. The number of teaching staff, for example, does not tell whether each is qualified in his/her field; is active in a professional development program provided by the institution; is employed at other higher education institutions in the country; is a good teacher or produces graduates who are readily employed and valued in the workplace. The square meters of a classroom does not tell if learning is taking place. Care needs to be taken in new systems to assure a healthy balance of quantitative and qualitative measurement. 3. A Fuzzy Definition of Conflict of Interest It is imperative for accreditation to be without conflict of interest in order that its outcomes are trusted and respected by its large number of users. In countries with developing legal systems or a legacy of centrist ideology, care needs to be taken to assure that the process is as objective and fair as possible. There are multiple ways in which this trust can be violated: through the appointment of an old guard which is not representative of modern higher education on the national commission; through the use of external reviewers who are known to be biased against certain types of institutions; or by having the decision making process leading to the status of accreditation led by those who are not independent (such as the governmental funding body making accreditation decisions upon which funding is determined). 4. Ranking Institutions Although there are countries which claim that they can publicly rank institutions (either by number or grade) without consequence, it is generally believed that avoiding ranking is the less divisive course in the long term development of a system of higher education. There further is a tendency in some countries for institutions to achieve top rankings based on historical precedence and remain at that rank regardless of current objective quality reviews. 12

16 To avoid ranking is not to say that there should not be gradations or levels of accreditation. Several systems employ at least a three status system: accredited (typically for a specified period of time no less than three and no more than seven to ten years; five being a reasonable time period for most systems); probation (for a reasonable time period less than accreditation during which certain weaknesses are to be addressed) and not accredited (which usually means that the institution or program needs to apply again after a certain period of time; or the status leads to a conclusion of educational activity). 5. Professional Accreditation Some countries have a bias against what they consider the self-serving nature of the professions (the guilds ) while countries have a tendency to ignore quality issues in the professions altogether. While the academic disciplines have retained the interest of new accrediting systems, there is a tendency to postpone the need to pay attention to professional education. Often, there is not a strong professional body advocating a certain level of practice in the country. When this is the case, it should be the responsibility of the national accrediting body to form a specialized committee for that profession (best composed of practitioners and academics) and nurture the development of professional standards and/or develop a national qualifications framework (as discussed earlier). Where strong professional bodies exist, they should be co-opted by the national accrediting body to help it review professional education programs. In more mature stages, the national accrediting body can recognize the professional accreditors which will, in turn, carry out their specialized processes on relevant programs. 6. Setting the Standards Too High or Too Low Accreditation provides a cut-off point or threshold that can be as high or as low as desired. Accreditation is a gatekeeper role, and it is no criticism of an accreditor to observe that it has little to say to an institution that is very far above the quality threshold. A cut-off point that is too low leads to a situation of caveat emptor (buyer beware) while a cut-off that is too high is safer for users but can deter innovation and new institutions. (Woodhouse, 1999). 13

17 II. The Status of Quality Assurance in East Asia and the Pacific Region As a gauge for the growth of quality assurance in higher education globally, the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education was founded in 1991 with 20 member countries. In 2003, the number of member countries that can claim a national quality assurance system is 60. This growth is mirrored in East Asia and the Pacific region. Of the 15 major national quality assurance bodies currently operating in 13 countries in the region, 12 were founded since 1991 and 11 of those since The 13 countries and their major national quality assurance bodies include: Australia: Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) 5 Hong Kong: Hong Kong Council on Academic Accreditation (HKCAA) 5 In earlier Bank publications, quality assurance systems were claimed in Australia and Singapore. Although Australian universities have historically been authorized by a State or Territory to confer degrees and call themselves universities, the universities have traditionally claimed themselves to be self-accrediting. Only in 2001 did the Australian government establish a central quality assurance body of Australian higher education (the Australian Universities Quality Agency). Similarly, Singapore is listed as having a quality assurance body. It is probable that some form of quality control activity takes place out of Singapore s Ministry of Education, and there are Offices of Quality Assurance internal to such institutions as the National University of Singapore. But an independent or semiautonomous body that has developed higher education standards and monitors the quality of Singapore s public institutions and programs of higher education is not known to exist. Singapore higher education is known to use foreign quality assurance bodies in a number of its professional schools such as medicine or management. At the time of this report s publication, Singapore is planning on establishing an accreditation process for private higher education. The Singapore Accreditation Council is to be administered out of the Ministry of Economy and not out of the Ministry of Education.] India: National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) Indonesia: The National Accreditation Board for Higher Education (BAN) Japan: National Institution for Academic Degrees (Governmental) NIAD Japan University Accredit-ation Association (Non-governmental) JUAA Korea: The Korean Council for University Education Malaysia: National Accreditation Board (LAN) Mongolia: National Council on Higher Education Accreditation New Zealand: Academic Audit Unit (AAU) People s Republic of China: a combination of centralized and decentralized quality assurance bodies Philippines: [primary bodies only] Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philip-pines (Governmental) AACCUP Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (Non-governmental) PAASCU Thailand: Office of National Educational Standards and Quality Assessment, Ministry of University Affairs (ONESQA) Vietnam: Quality Assurance Unit (QA Unit) 14

18 In addition to these, there is outstanding legislation in Cambodia with the potential for establishing a national accrediting council for public and private higher education. A World Bank credit is possible upon appropriate passage of this act. A. General Characteristics of the Region s Quality Assurance Bodies Attached to this report is a substantial Appendix which describes in some detail the quality assurance body(ies) of 13 countries in East Asia and the Pacific region. For each body, the following information is provided: Contact Information Legal Establishment of Body Relationship to Stakeholders Information about the Body Itself Quality Assurance Activity Key characteristics of the region s quality assurance bodies found in the Appendix is presented in comparative form below in Figure1. For this purpose, China is counted as a single quality assurance system and only major national bodies are listed for countries where multiple bodies exist (e.g. Japan and Philippines). Figure 1 indicates that of the 15 major national quality assurance bodies in the 13 countries of the region: Founding: Twelve were founded by government, and three by universities (the latter being Japan s JUAA, New Zealand s QAA and the Philippines PAASCU). Independence: All but China, Mongolia and Vietnam (models of Centralized Government bodies described earlier) claim some level of independence/autonomy from government; however, it is difficult to ascertain just what independent means in some national contexts. Examples include: Japan s NIAD, Korea s KCUE, Philippine s AACCUP, and Thailand s ONESQA. All of these are governmental bodies but their independence from government decision-making in higher education would need closer scrutiny than this study to determine the level of autonomy. Therefore, the category, Quasi- Governmental has been avoided in Figure 1. As described earlier in this section, the non-governmental bodies (the 3 founded by the universities listed above) can claim the greatest independence in decision-making. Government Represented on National Body: Governmental officials, such as from the Ministry of Education either sit on or chair the national bodies in Australia, China, Korea, Mongolia, the AACCUP in the Philippines, Thailand and, although pending policy development, most probably in Vietnam. As stated earlier, the level of independence maintained by the national body depends on who from government sits on the national body. As examples, the Minister of Education and/or those in charge of funding institutions usually do not sit on national accrediting bodies so that an apparent conflict of interest is avoided. Funding: The 3 founded by universities are funded by the universities; 6 are funded by both government (for the organization) and the institutions of higher education (for the external review processes); In addition to receiving funding from government and institutions, Hong Kong receives additional fees from consulting and other services. International Participation on Body or in Process: Of the 15, Hong Kong (one quarter of the Council members), NIAD of Japan (one 15

19 member: head of the bilateral Fulbright organization) and New Zealand s Academic Audit Unit have international members serving on the national body. Australia and Hong Kong use international external reviewers in their processes. (Among the recommendations of this study is provision for a regional pool of external reviewers for the dual purposes of capacity building and building closer regional ties.) 16

20 Figure 1: National Quality Assurance Bodies in East Asia and Pacific: General Characteristics Founding and Governance QA Type Funded By International Participation Year Founded Founded by Government Non-Government Origin Independent Body Government Represented Body Accreditation Audit Assessment Government Institutions Other On Decision making Body Among External Reviewers Australia 2001 X X X X X X X China PRC Provincial 2000 X X X X X X Hong Kong PRC 1990 X X X X X X X X India 1994 X X X X X X Indonesia 1994 X X X X X Japan JUAA 1947 X X X X NIAD 2000 X U X X X Korea 1982 X X X X Malaysia 1996 X X X X Mongolia 2000 X X X X New Zealand 1994 X X X X X Philippines AACCUP 1987 X X X X PAASCU 1957 X X X X Thailand 1999 X X X X X Vietnam 2002 X * X X U - Undetermined Independent Status * - Pending Policy Development 17

21 B. Current Status of Quality Assurance Networking in the Region Although national quality assurance bodies in the region have visited each other s countries and met on occasions at international gatherings over the years, the majority of regional networking in quality assurance has taken place since In the last three years, UNESCO has sponsored two regional programs; the ASEAN University Network (AUN) has initiated a quality assurance activity; SEAMEO may entertain a regional policy in quality assurance, and INQAAHE has formed an Asia Pacific Sub-Network. Each of these gatherings has contributed to: Developing a sense of higher education quality community in the region; Assisting smaller and developing countries; Providing forums for discussing issues common to higher education in all countries; Identifying expertise in the region; Providing opportunity for crossfertilization through staff exchange or short-term professional visits. UNESCO. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization with its regional offices in Bangkok has sponsored two regional conferences on quality assurance. The first was hosted by the Ministry of University Affairs of Thailand on 8-10 November 2000 and centered on the theme, Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Standards, Mechanisms and Mutual Recognition. It was agreed that quality assurance is clearly a major issue for higher education across the region and it was predicted that it seems certain to continue to be of key issues concern for the next decade and beyond. (Harman, 2000) A major publication of conference proceedings emanated from that conference. A second, smaller conference was convened by India s National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in August, 2002 with sponsorship by UNESCO. Of concern at both of these conferences and to UNESCO throughout the globe is the issue of recognition of academic degrees among countries, particularly as greater mobility characterizes the global marketplace, including both persons and higher education itself crossing borders in virtual or physical ways. In 2001, Paris headquarters instituted a new Section in the Division of Higher Education on Access, Mobility and Quality Assurance. Among this Section's responsibilities are the regional Conventions on the Recognition of Degrees, including UNESCO's Asia Pacific Region. In UNESCO's European Convention (which includes traditional Europe, Turkey, Israel, the United States, Canada, and Australia as an observer), a system of European National Information Centers (ENICS) was instituted several years ago, typically housed in the foreign education credential evaluating divisions of Ministries of Education. It is the responsibility of these National Information Centers to provide basic public information on the authorized/ accredited status of institutions of higher education in their country for purposes of transparency and be a service to students, teaching staff and others in need of checking the status of an academic qualification or the legitimacy of an institution. However, national 18

22 quality assurance bodies have evolved and matured over the years with direct access and responsibility for such national higher education information. Within this context, UNESCO has indicated that they would like to explore a possible collaboration with any regional quality assurance initiatives the World Bank may initiate for purposes of exploring the feasibility of national quality assurance bodies becoming the National Information Centers in the Asia Pacific region. ASEAN. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations includes the ten countries of: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Lao People s Democratic Republic, Myanmar and Cambodia. (ASEAN countries with national quality assurance bodies are underlined.) The basis of a trade bloc (the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement), the organization sponsors a variety of activities for its member countries, including the ASEAN University Network (AUN), developed in 1995: The general objectives of the AUN is to strengthen the existing network of cooperation among universities in ASEAN by promoting collaborative studies and research programs on the priority areas identified by ASEAN. The specific objectives are to promote cooperation and solidarity among scientists and scholars in the ASEAN Member Countries; to develop academic and professional human resources in the region; and to produce and transmit scientific and scholarly knowledge and information to achieve ASEAN goals. A new initiative of the AUN, begun in 2000, centers on quality assurance: This new AUN initiative is currently on top of the Network s priority list with the aims to promote the development of a quality assurance system as an instrument for maintaining, improving and enhancing teaching, research and overall institutional academic standards of higher education of AUN member universities while recognizing and respecting the differences among member universities in their institutions and environment. In the three workshops held since its founding, the AUN quality assurance initiative has developed common quality assurance policies and criteria; discussed bench marking procedures and best practices in teaching and learning. There are strengths and challenges in this network: A strength is that each country s strongest universities are represented on the AUN; A challenge is that a total of 17 universities are involved in the process with no current prospect for expansion and those not included sometimes have difficulty getting information. If it is true that each country can send 2 universities, the total only reaches 20 participating at any one time; A strength is that common policies and criteria for quality assurance are being discussed; however, A challenge is that it is difficult to ensure that these discussions have bearing on the respective national system quality assurance processes, although some of these 19

23 universities are involved directly in those national bodies; A key strength is that 17 universities in the region are being well served by this capacity building activity. In brief, although the AUN is an important activity among member countries, it is not yet broad-based enough to have impact on neighboring universities and influence on national quality assurance systems. SEAMEO. The Southeast Asian Minister of Education Organization (SEAMEO) based in Bangkok has included quality assurance as a topic in its various meetings over time. It is mentioned because of a draft proposal it received at the end of 2002 on the development of a regional quality assurance framework from 12 participants in a multiple month quality assurance training program sponsored by the Dutch government and held in the Netherlands. The 12 represent three countries: Vietnam (2); Thailand (7) and Indonesia (3). The proposal calls on the development of a single responsible body to strengthen and maintain the quality assurance culture in the region through regional workshops, training courses and the use of electronic information systems with the potential over time to develop a regional accreditation system using common standards. INQAAHE. The International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education was founded in 1991 in Hong Kong by representatives of several national quality assurance systems throughout the globe. Whereas in 1991, the number of country members was 20, in 2003, the number has swelled to 60. The Network s offices move every few years but are expected to become more permanent in the near future. The primary purposes of the Network are to: Promote good practices in the maintenance and improvement of quality in higher education; Facilitate research into the practice of quality management in higher education and its effectiveness; Provide advice and expertise to assist in the development of new quality assurance agencies; Facilitate links between accrediting bodies; Assist members to determine the standards of institutions operat-ing both within their borders and trans nationally; Permit better informed international recognition of qualifications; Assist in the development and use of credit transfer schemes to enhance the mobility of students between institutions (within and across national borders); and Enable members to be alert to dubious accrediting practices and organizations. Since 1991, several Sub-Networks of INQAAHE have been formed representing geographical regions. On 18 January 2003, the Asia Pacific Quality Network was formed by vote of the members meeting at a regional conference in Hong Kong. Six areas of priority were identified and project committees assigned: Compilation of Quality Indicators; 20